[flash]

roflmao

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

[quote name='kzem1' timestamp='1417800910' post='164254']I guess under your plan we should have left Hitler alone. I don't stand with that. We should defend freedom whenever possible and not let Holocausts, like the one going on right now with ISIS,.[/quote]



Serously ?! Did we get involved to stop Stalin from causing a death toll reportedly far greater then the holocaust ? Did we step in to prevent the Armenian genocide by the Turks ? ( ok, the US was not a super power then, so I'll let that one slide ,,) Did we stop Idi Amin from all the atrocities he committed ? Did we send troops to South Africa to end apartheid ? How about any of the other tyrants around the world - Idi Amin ? Duvalier ? Pot Pol ? Khrushchev ? Ceausescu ? Noriega ? Kim Jong Il ? Bush ? ( ok, I had to throw that one in for entertainment value, lol ) Well you get the idea..we're the world policeman only when there is a special interest for us to do that. I'm with flash on this one; the military should exclusively protect our homeland , anything outside our borders should be left to sort out their own issues.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[paulzebo]

You forgot Putin's handy work and the invasion of the Ukrainian. Unless I misread it, you kind of agree with Flash. Flash wants to get rid of the military altogether.



"cut the military altogether. who needs it? if we stopped trying to chase oil everywhere in the world, and stayed home where we belong, we would have no need"



While you want a military to protect our homeland. I can agree with you on that. Treaties and bases which were set up after a war or conflict need to be reassessed yearly. Typically the "host" county was bombed flat and needed to be rebuilt. The "host" didn't have the money to rebuild, so the USA stepped in. And typically we never left. Now some of those "Host" countries we protect and have bases at, also have thriving economies. It should be up to them to support their own homeland security. Good examples of this are Germany, England, the rest of Europe, Japan, South Korea, Bahrain, Greenland, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Turkey and Singapore. They do not require our protection anymore. I think what sealed it for me was when Putin set up the Ukraine and the Euro community did nothing but some lame sanctions. They wanted us to use our military so they would have little at risk. Here's a tip to other countries. If you have trouble in your own neighborhood, take care of it yourself or suffer the consequences. Get some of your own skin in the game you want us to play in!



By the way. The USA doesn't chase oil overseas like we did ten years ago. We are now the numero uno producer of the stuff. Here's a clip from Bloomberg in July of this year regarding it.



http://www.bloomberg...king-saudi.html



"The U.S. will remain the world’s biggest oil producer this year after overtaking Saudi Arabia and Russia as extraction of energy from shale rock spurs the nation’s economic recovery, Bank of America Corp. said."



Which is why gas officially reached 1.99 a gallon in Oklahoma this week.



Hey, now that we are no longer the #1 economy in the world, maybe some of the politicians will wake up!



http://www.marketwatch.com/story/its-off...2014-12-04



Naaaaa. Won't happen.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[968Syncro]

Ok guys, this thread is officially terminated by the invocation of Godwin's Law.



The publishers (these days perhaps known as admins) however may choose otherwise. But I wouldn't.



All further rants will be hereby be submitted to ........ well you pick.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Bulti]

"I think what sealed it for me was when Putin set up the Ukraine and the Euro community did nothing but some lame sanctions. They wanted us to use our military so they would have little at risk."



Paul you are having a laugh I suppose? Sending in troops wouldn't solve a thing. It would only cause more death and destruction. The economic sanctions can be actually very effective. The Russians are feeling the effects right now. They are getting isolated from the rest of the world, wich is very bad for business. Putin IS feeling the pressure, but can't back out quickly or he would loose face.



I don't want a war over a piece of land that has always been Russian to begin with. I know, the Sovjets lost the land and it's Ukranian now, but tell that to the people who live there. There are solutions for this situation, but sending over troops isn't one of them. I don't need Russian tanks ruining my front lawn.



By the way, Putin is afraid too for the consequences of an all-out armed confict, otherwise he would put Russian flags on his troop's gear.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

[quote name='paulzebo' timestamp='1417841917' post='164262'] Unless I misread it, you kind of agree with Flash. Flash wants to get rid of the military altogether.

Hey, now that we are no longer the #1 economy in the world, maybe some of the politicians will wake up!

.[/quote]



No, I'm not at all in favor of eliminating the military altogether, but rather cutting the spending to an absolute minimum expense necessary to simply sustain our current levels ( furthermore reduced to solely defending our borders ) withdrawing all troops stationed overseas, and especially not sending a single soldier anywhere else in the world and putting them in harm's way in order to "help" with other nations conflicts, whatever those may be. The argument that we do so to " protect our interests " is completely lame.



Not losing any sleep over China's new number one position. Every economist has predicted this was going to happen, and every economist has also predicted it will be a very short-lived bubble.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[paulzebo]

Hey Bulti-



"I don't want a war over a piece of land that has always been Russian to begin with."



And that's OK. Neither do we. In fact, it's your back yard, so you police it or ignore it, as you want. Just be prepared to live with the consequences and do not ask for USA involvement if things go bad. What I'm saying is we, the USA, need to close down most of it's overseas bases and come home. That includes the ones in Chievres, Benelux and Brussels.



" I don't need Russian tanks ruining my front lawn."



Those that do not remember history are doomed to repeat it. You really should review history on August 4, 1914 and May 10th, 1940. Review the political decisions leading up to these dates trying to appease an oppressor.



"Putin is afraid too for the consequences of an all-out armed conflict, otherwise he would put Russian flags on his troop's gear"



I would not underestimate Vladimir by saying he's afraid of anything or any government. The man grew up in the cold war when the Russian people could not buy a loaf of bread in a store. He lead the KGB. Do you really think he's afraid? Your statement seems to indicate you agree Putin has Russian troops in the Ukraine and accept it. That statement of complicity is just another reason why I'm in favor of bring most of our troops home.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[lbpesq]

+1 on Godwin's Law. Look it up.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Bulti]

Paul,



I'm just trying to say there are other means of getting Putin out of the Ukraine. Not by military force, but to convince the Russians themselves that he has to go. His own people are his biggest enemy I think.



I hope that everything works out ok. For the Ukranians, but also for the Russians who live there.



In any case, our eastern European brethren are getting pretty nervous and the EU is expanding close to Putin's doorstep, so maybe it's going to get far worse before it gets any better.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[kzem1]

Putin stole BILLIONS for himself and his friends during the Olympics. He and his friends are not going anywhere soon. They have more than enough money to get them past any sanctions that will be placed. He is laughing his ass off at Obama. The drop in oil prices will have a bigger effect on Russia than any Obama foo foo sanctions. So while China and Russia are hugely increasing the spending and size on their military's you want to gut ours? Peace through strength works. We have seen the past 6 years what peace with the "please don't do that" or "please don't cross that line" or "no boots on the ground ever" is working out. Putin wants to rebuild the USSR and America lets him do it at its own peril. Stand with our allies or cower alone in a corner. Maybe if we stopped sending Billions to countries that hate us and terrorist groups like Hamas that Obama likes to fun we would have more money for more important things in our own country. WTF are we doing borrowing money from ourselves to send money to countries that hate us??? Yes, we are not borrowing the money from anyone as they are no longer buying our debt. It is being monetized by the FED through American Corporate Banks.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

[quote name='kzem1' timestamp='1418007032' post='164282']. So while China and Russia are hugely increasing the spending and size on their military's you want to gut ours? Peace through strength works. .[/quote]



The size of any CONVENTIONAL military force in this era is completely irrelevant. At best you'll win a very short lived victory but accomplish absolutely nothing long term. Think Russia vs Afghanistan, US vs Iraq, etc,. Regretfully that elusive "peace through strength" is only attainable by the threat of nuclear arsenal and a nation"s willingness to use it. We have enough warheads to destroy the entire world many times over. So what would be the point of continuing to build up any more conventional military might when that accomplishes virtually nothing ? As for nuclear weapons, the difference is that we are concerned about the moral imperative which makes that option almost unthinkable, while Putin likely does not give a flying f**k about anyone else on this planet or how the world will view Russia if he invades another country or even fires a few nuclear missiles into it. He is betting we would never respond in kind. And he's probably right. Of course, he would never engage the US directly in a nuclear war because he knows in that case retaliation is assured and in that scenario there are no winners. Hey he's insane, not stupid :-) :

It seems economic sanctions are really the only peaceful solution, and I do think they are effective as anything else . Or, assassination , but I guess we have a policy against that :-) :-)

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

all of this is irrelevant as we have ruined the planet to the point where in a few decades nobody will be here to care. so, i say pull everything back. let them all fight amongst themselves. keep just enough military to protect against invasion, and screw the rest. survival of the fittest. democracy doesn't work, and moreover most people don't want it, so why bother trying to instill it elsewhere? even here they chose to form a republic rather than a democracy, so as to maintain a hierarchical control.



all of this nonsense is more hype than real anyway. they have to have something to broadcast, so they pump up the little skirmishes. 3 dead here. 4 dead there. big deal. more die in compton in gang shootings every day, but it no longer makes the news, because it won't sell commercials. come rattle my cage when it's 10,000 in one day. they spend more time trying to blame somebody for it than on the event itself. it will be fun to watch those right wing clowns try to wiggle out of the war they are about to get us into. the debt is about to soar to pay for it, and then once again the public will vote out the conservatives so they can stop the military spending. it's cyclical.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[kzem1]

Obama should have blown ISIS off the map, from the air, when he had a chance. They were traveling hundreds of miles, through the open desert, between towns and he did nothing. Now they are embedded in towns and it is much more difficult. I refuse to believe it is ok to sit by and watch a Holocast of a people just because it is over there. If we can do something, I think we should.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

and just how would that have happened? air strikes would not solve the problem. they are too scattered. you would be working a dozen human targets at a time, and getting nowhere. ground forces are the only way we are willing to pursue to deal with that, and we cannot commit enough of those forces to accomplish the task, nor should we. we have a solution, but nobody wants to use it. one shot - problem gone - what's the problem? nobody's innocent. punish both of the kids if they can't play nice together. you can bet that nobody else will stir things up like that again. worked in japan just fine. ugly? yes. effective? you bet.



regardless, this stuff has been going on for thousands of years. it's not going to stop because we think we have a better flavor of ice cream. they don't want our "better flavor" no matter how hard we try to cram it down their throats. they need to sort it out amongst themselves, and then we can deal with the winner, and whatever resources they have left. victory by attrition. pretty basic.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Rap]

Interesting to watch our enlightened citizens in Berkeley looting stores and destroying property all in the name of peaceful protest over the decisions of two grand juries. Perhaps the more urbane of you understand this, I don't. Too bad the owners don't stay in their stores guarding them and shooting those breaking in. I bet a rubber bullet hurts like heck when it hits your face or nads.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

Aside from completely agreeing with RAP ( and I do , as far as his most recent post is concerned ) I'm still wondering how this ties in to the thread unless the honorable gentleman from Pa ;-). is suggesting that all those demonstrators are democrats and that republicans would never voice their concerns or take to the streets in senseless protest and damage property while at it.. are you Bob ? BTW, Berkeley is just one among many cities where these numbskulls have caused havoc. Free speech, yes, if it's peaceful..the moment you break a store window, or block my car from getting through on the street you deserve a rubber bullet ( or two...or three ) followed by some tear gas, and some taser in your ass just to teach you a lesson for the next time you decide to interfere with my life's quiet enjoyment .

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[paulzebo]

Here's my favorite saying from the web on places that did not get looted during hurricane Katrina....



   



Along with a link on the places that did and did not get looted in Ferguson.



http://www.liveleak....=ef5_1417670098

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Rap]

Dan I am delighted to see that you are sensible enough to agree with me. There is still hope for you! No I'm not inferring this is a D or R issue. Both sides have the capacity to act insensibley. What I'm saying is that these non peaceful demonstrations cost us more by marginalizing the act of peacefully demonstrating to a public perception of this as an activity which results in looting, destruction of business's and inconvenience. Rather than a lawful expression of the populaces right to protest that which they see as wrong.



Freedom of speech is a right not a ticket to destroy and cause loss to innocent victims who may very well agree with what you're demonstrating for. Look at what happened in the late 60's with demonstrations that got out of hand, including Kent State. The public recoiled from them and they lost some of their usefulness. When the public starts to perceive public demonstrations in a negative light we all start to pay more for less. Although I do watch a news source that Flash seems to continually castigate, perhaps it's because they are the only ones reporting certain news stories, I do consume info from a variety of sources. To my great chagrin, I must confess that some of these are quite, oh how shall I characterize it, liberal.



Perhaps I delude myself into believing that I'm still intelligent to understand the truth from fiction and question that which is presented to me as fact. In my business I believe nothing until I see it. As a staunch conservative I am forced everyday to put aside my personal beliefs, ideology, education, background and breeding to deal with the people I do. It's refreshing because it forces me to look at things differently than I might. I've stayed out of the military conversation because it's an age old discussion. No disrespect to those that have engaged in it.



You don't like what you see, there is a process to change it. Of course that would require people to get off their duffs to vote or to call their legislators. Think that's a waste of time, I wonder how people in other countries would feel about the right to do that without having some goon from the state knocking your door down.



I guess I'm too old or hide bound to see how burning a store down or smashing the windows and stealing TV's or liquor peacefully shows my opposition and objection to what has gone on in Ferguson and New York. Notice how all the peaceful demonstrators stand idiley around while this occurs? It is a dangerous trend for allegedly law abiding citizens to watch while others commit crimes. Although thank god it seems to be limited, it is a breakdown in civil order for this to happen. It doesn't seem like much now but that's how many things seem at first when the public accepts this behavior. Again we pay more for less when we let criminals dictate our news cycles and public opinion.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

Terrorism, among other definitions is also listed as an act committed with the purpose of influencing or coercing the government into changing policy or practices through acts of intimidation and fear which affect and victimize the general public. These recent protests where destruction of property and bodily harm to bystanders ( I believe most have probably seen the video of that person who was trying to peacefully TALK the protesters out of breaking store windows and who was attacked and hit in the head with a hammer ) are no different in nature and intent than the above mentioned definition so not sure why the media refers to it as merely "vandalism "

Call it what it is ; terrorism - and haul all those punks away ( those who hurt anyone and/or destroy property ) for a bit of anti-terrorism treatment, perhaps a nice trip to Gitmo :-).

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

i'm not at all convinced that the police were wrong in their actions. while i know full well that there are abuses of that power, i think we need to take a look at the individuals involved. if they had affiliations with gangs and whatnot, then they get what they get, whether they were doing something at that moment to justify the force or not. we should be hunting down, capturing, and publicly stoning gang members on sight. they have no purpose other than to break the law and endanger the public. to me, they are the worst form of terrorism, and should be treated as such.



but then, i'm a bit of a fan of one punishment for all crime.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.